Ken Armstrong  wrote:

> By this I don't mean your example is wrong; it does
> clarify the two notions: other meanings and contexts. But ultimately they
> must be seen as they work together ... Not very well put, but maybe the
> sense of it isn't lost.
>   Or say that the dictionary meanings of Leman (archaic and Lake) are
> incomplete (don't reach their signification in the poem) without the
> Biblical allusion.

It appears we are in agreement here except for some minor things not worth
quibbling about.

I was thinking of going on with my post to discuss how the Leman use could
be layered on top of the allusion but I decided that was beyond my ability.
I may have picked a good line to use as an example because it used both
methods but that may not have been the best thing to do because it did add
complexity overall.

Jennifer Formichelli wrote:

> Steve, I think there is a difference between calling up another
> (usually secondary to the primary sense in context) meaning of a
> word, and calling into play other's words and contexts.

Jennifer, did the examples I showed actually go to the point you brought up?
I had a bit of difficulty with your thoughts and that was how I interpreted
them.  Did I come close to what you meant?

   Rick Parker